Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
This is not her testimony, this is the DA recounting her testimony.
It is decidedly not the whole story as evidenced by the group chat that the DA never saw and that she’s suing Cornell accusing them of holding back evidence.
That's true. It's the DA paraphrase of her testimony. Her testimony will likely not become public prior to the trial. I never said it's the full picture either, it clearly doesn't include the group chats that happened on the other side of the door. It just shows what she says (or the DAs summary of it at least) happened on her side of the door.
I also don't agree with the DA. That story has enough evidence of people pressuring her into doing more drugs and drinking more to get her into a more compromised state. That alone should have been enough for charges. You can't just have someone say "stop" and respond with "do you want more drugs?".
DA in Cornell University case says he never saw transcript of campus police interview with alleged rape victim
That's some good fucking journalism right there. What a piece of shit DA blatantly lying about the transcript.
The transcript said "Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."
But then the fucking DA's "legal analysis" says:
The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.
I had suspected that the DA was as ass when they said "I have asked a senior prosecutor from my office to prepare the case for Grand Jury presentation"
Grand jury deliberations are secret and there is no legal requirement to provide any or all evidence to the grand jury. Neither the victim nor the accused get to present evidence or have lawyers review or present anything. They can also arbitrarily select the members from a random draw. This is probably one of those DA throwing the case and shrugging "we did our best" the grand jury wouldn't indite.
I'll amend my initial link to add this article.
Yeah, the grand jury thing is particularly damning.
For the unaware: The old joke among criminal defense lawyers is that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the District Attorney wants them to. The GJ is strictly an arm of the DA’s office, and a failure to indict basically always means the DA didn’t want to prosecute them. The DA has full control over what evidence the GJ gets to (or in this case, doesn’t get to) see.
The evidence they present doesn’t need to stand up to court scrutiny, because the GJ isn’t held to the same standards for evidence. The DA could basically scribble a “lol yeah I definitely did it -{Suspect}” note on a napkin and present it to the GJ as evidence of a confession. The fact that it won’t hold up in court doesn’t matter, because the GJ isn’t ruling on guilt. They’re just ruling on whether or not the DA has enough evidence to bother with a trial.
The DA can even withhold exculpatory evidence that would prove the suspect’s innocence, if they think the suspect can’t afford a good lawyer and they want to try and force the suspect into taking a plea deal. That is particularly common when they just need to close a particularly hot case, and they don’t really care who actually did the crime. They’ll basically frame some poor schmuck who has a good alibi, in the hopes that the person’s public defender talks them into taking a plea deal before it ever goes to trial.
“So why bother with all of this” I can already hear some of you typing… The answer is very simple: It’s because the DA is an elected position, and needs to consider their public image when deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. For example, let’s say a cop kills a dude in the street. It’s on camera from 20 different angles. The public is out for blood. And it’s election season, so the DA’s public image is under a spotlight right now. But the police union has privately told the DA that if they prosecute the cop for murder, CSI will stop collecting evidence at crime scenes, and officers will suddenly refuse to testify as witnesses in the DA’s trials. This puts the DA in a bit of a pickle. Do they hold to what their electors want (and risk letting future criminals walk free), just to prosecute the one cop? Or do they let the cop walk away, angering the public and likely losing their upcoming election?
Enter the Grand Jury. The GJ is a super convenient scapegoat. They’re a shadowy group of faceless individuals, with no public presence and no way to defend themselves or justify their decisions. Their only job is to do what the DA wants them to do. The DA doesn’t want to prosecute this cop, but also wants to win their election. So the DA does something supremely scummy: They tell the public that they’re bringing the case to the GJ… And then they don’t actually bring any evidence for the GJ. The GJ can only rule on the evidence that was presented, and since the DA has full control over the evidence, they can withhold everything. So the GJ naturally refuses to indict, because there is an overwhelming lack of evidence.
And now the DA can jump in front of the news cameras, and yell about “I tried so hard to prosecute this case, but the big mean GJ refused to indict and now my hands are tied. But remember, I tried to fight for what you wanted! I heard your cries for justice, and did everything I could to prosecute that big mean killer cop. Vote for me!”
Again, the GJ can’t refute that statement, because they’re not publicly known. The GJ can’t go “hey uhh you actually didn’t bring a single fucking shred of evidence.” They can’t go “we actually would have indicted if you had actually tried.” They can’t go “you’re a lying sack of shit who is using us as a scapegoat.” The DA gets control of the evidence, but they also get control of the narrative.
So any time you see a DA claiming to be building a case for the GJ and then the GJ fails to indict, remember that it was because the DA didn’t want to charge them.